Posted
by
msmash
on Monday December 04, 2017 @03:40PM
from the welcome-move dept.

Several readers share a report: Nine nations and the European Union have reached a deal to place the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) off-limits to commercial fishers for at least the next 16 years. The pact, announced last week, will give scientists time to understand the region's marine ecology -- and the potential impacts of climate change -- before fishing becomes widespread. "There is no other high seas area where we've decided to do the science first," says Scott Highleyman, vice president of conservation policy and programs at the Ocean Conservancy in Washington, D.C., who also served on the U.S. delegation to the negotiations. "It's a great example of putting the precautionary principle into action." The deal to protect 2.8 million square kilometers of international waters in the Arctic was reached after six meetings spread over 2 years. It includes not just nations with coastal claims in the Arctic, but nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea with fishing fleets interested in operating in the region.

Actually, they don't. Whale meat is not very good, and there is not much of a market for it. Japanese whale harvesting is really about subsidies to a special interest group which donates liberally and is adept at exploiting nationalism and the "culture" angle in their propaganda. Much of the whale meat ends of in dog food.

On the other hand, minke whales are plentiful and I don't see any moral difference between killing them and killing cows.

How about chimpanzees? Or is eating intelligent beings with complex social lives only distasteful when they're relatively closely related?

Well let's flip that around, are you ok eating a potato? At what point on the biological hierarchy between potato and human do you define the boundary between living thing with a social life and things that are allowed to be eaten?

Personally, I try to avoid commissioning the death of anything that demonstrates sophisticated tool-use and problem-solving skills. Which pretty much rules out most whales and higher primates, elephants, etc.

Personally, I try to avoid commissioning the death of anything that demonstrates sophisticated tool-use and problem-solving skills. Which pretty much rules out most whales and higher primates, elephants, etc.

What if the trade-off is a good life in exchange for your corpse? To demonstrate, if someone offered me a guaranteed good life on the condition they'd eat me when I'm dead, I'd take it. What right do you have to deny that to others?

Even if "when you were dead" involved them probably killing you before age 20? Because that's about the norm for farm animals.

More context is probably required such around what is the life expectancy of a farmed animal compared to wild? If infant mortality and life expectancy were similar to the 16th century then 20 good years might be a good deal.

Even in the 16th century, life expectancy at birth was ~40 years. And if you survived your first few years it went way up.

A lot of domestic animals don't have close wild relatives anymore, but we can make rough comparisons - like cows, elk can live to be 20, but their life expectancy is 10-13. Similarly wild boars typically live to about 12 in captivity, or about 6 in the wild. And the trend continues - like 16th century humans, it seems wild animals have a life expectancy of roughly middle-age, about half

You still up for it? Knowing your "good life" will likely mean living alone in a small, filthy cage with an unending supply of food, and a distracted slaughter that you probably won't be conscious for as puberty begins to slow down?

Maybe where you live has lower standard of living both for humans and animals. Where I live, cows and sheep roam free in paddocks. Not a bad life compared to a lot of other species.

Perhaps you should learn more about cows. Their social lives are very complex, and they have distinct personalities.

I don't eat whales, but I don't eat cows either. If you eat cows, but are outraged about people eating minke whales (which are plentiful), they you are being hypocritical. There is no moral difference.

All fish in Arctic waters property of the Glorious Soviet, err, Russian Nuclear Powered Icebreaker/Research Vessel. Comrade, err, Doctor Lysenko already planning experiments to produce Gillmen able to approach American submarines and plant magnetic bombs charges on them, as NKVD punishment battalions were assigned to do to Panzers in Great Patriotic war after all suicide dogs [scribol.com] eaten by greedy Kulaks.

Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.

Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.

I'll be surprised if the US is still intact in 15 years, let alone honoring an environmental treaty.

You should be saying that about EU countries. As it stands now, Canada has repeatedly arrested commercial fishers from norway, sweden, denmark and iceland for illegally fishing, illegally fishing in Canadian territorial waters, and illegally using banned netting. US commercial fishers at least have adhered to the rules for the last 50 years(or are clever enough not to be caught). China is another flagrant abuser of international maritime laws relating to fishing.

I was more surprised to see Iceland; their second largest fishing port is basically in the Arctic Circle, and although they're a wonderfully tolerant and environmentally friendly people, you fuck with their fishing and they'll gut you like a herring, i.e. with terrifying efficiency.

Let's see. Environmental movement started with America. America has done a good job of managing our fisheries except when we have europeans and Chinese running through our waters and fishing illegally.
Otoh, both Europe and China are destroying the fishing all around their nations. Hmm.

nope.
Just like reagan, Trump will not be able to make any changes to environment to matter.
For example, Trump claims that we are going to expand coal in a massive way. Yet, we are not building any new coal plants. Why not? Because both wind and nat gas are MUCH CHEAPER than coal. While there are places in America, where coal is cheaper than say wind or nat gas, then the other remains cheaper than coal. As such, NO UTILITY will build a new coal plant in America. It is just not economically feasible.

Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.

Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.

Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.

No, that's a lot of countries that won't be fishing in the specified area. If, for instance, North Korea were to send fishing boats there, well, they'd be catching as much as they wanted to, what with no competition for the fish...

Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.

I'd not be so sure about that. Quite a lot of countries, especially in Africa and Asia, have no concept of sustainable use of renewable resources whatsoever, they have already fished out their own territorial waters and the pirate fleets they operate are now perpetrating a tragedy of the commons in international waters.There are plenty of costal states in the Atlantic for example who watch these pirate fleets overfish the areas outside of their 200 mile EEZ and they are are just itching to go after these p

Meanwhile the Antarctic is being sucked dry of everything that swims as quickly as the massive seafood concerns can fish. Lots of it is illegal [antarctica.gov.au] fishing, and using slave labour.
Also the Pacific is being fished empty, illegally by vast foreign fishing fleets, despite the Pacific nations protests. [theguardian.com]
In my view commercial fishing is unsustainable long term, and should be outlawed completely.

Meanwhile the Antarctic is being sucked dry of everything that swims as quickly as the massive seafood concerns can fish.
Lots of it is illegal [antarctica.gov.au] fishing, and using slave labour.
Also the Pacific is being fished empty, illegally by vast foreign fishing fleets, despite the Pacific nations protests. [theguardian.com]
In my view commercial fishing is unsustainable long term, and should be outlawed completely.

Not just the Pacific, fishing fleets from the Pacific have been operating in the North Atlantic for years. A lot of these fleets come from places like Taiwan and the Comoros. There are also fleets engaging in massive overfishing operating out of Italy and the Balkans. The only way to fix this is to extend the fisheries managment authority of nations to international waters and then form naval task forces with the authority to board and confiscate illegal fishing vessels under piracy laws. Soft power isn't e

I agree entirely with you. I didn't know the Italians were at it too, but as a Pacific Islander am fully aware of the destruction being wrought by the Chinese and the Thais (among others).
I am old enough to remember our Government (NZ) impounding a Vietnamese fishing boat, then auctioning it off because of illegal fishing (late 1970's). Although it was a stupid political stunt to boost the popularity of an unpopular government, and to brown-nose the Americans, it did stop the pirates for a while.
We are

Jeremy Wade is more into freshwater, but I'm pretty sure he would approve of this. Do I speak out of turn?

While I'm here using a supposed celebrity endorsement that is entirely of my own imagination, I think this is a move in a good direction. It does seem hard to count the fish accurately even with some major change like cancelling most fishing... the fish should be increasing in number, so any detrimental effects would be masked for a good while, right?

But yeah, I think I see what you're saying. Boo government, let the people fish the oceans until they are underwater deserts. Fish the oceans until you have full blown ecosystem collapse. That'll work out great. Libertarianism, yay.

in this paper i cover most of the wrongs industry has caused life on earth since the industrial revolution, and in the middle there is a long section on overfishing. just read about what really happens in the fishing industry when you digest news about some part of the ocean being "protected from fishing x years". if you've ever argued with fishing industry professionals when they are being told to cut it out, you know firsthand what a bunch of lying phoney bastards they are when it comes to the environment